It's impossible till it isn't, I'm sure when people first heard of trains and the amount of infrastructure that was necessary they probably also believed that even if it was possible it would only be for the rich. No one knows the future, but if the past is any sign we have definitely not reached our technological peak. The next thing could so utterly revolutionize the way we view things that people who have never known a life before them will view it as Jurassic.

ldai_phs wrote:There are also projecting 700mph speeds. Neither has a grounding in reality or has ever been shown to be possible.

And the logistics to handle multiple 'trains' in the tube at once even more complicated. MO's feasibility study and CBA should assume 200-300mph, not 700. I'd be surprised if the Feds (or State of MO) would allow passenger service at first, makes more sense to test with freight first several years or whatever time frame to get very high success rate. Even a 0.1% accident rate would not be acceptable (1 out of a thousand runs) for passengers, but it could be acceptable for freight.

WoodDraw wrote:I mean it takes 45 minutes to fly to stl and an hour to Chicago. The only way this changes things is if it's just as fast and cheaper. And lacks the airport security theater I guess.

Why can't we just invest in our current rail system?

I think hyperloop, or even fast rail, could begin competing with certain air routes if it even took 4 hours to Chicago (assuming security is super fast and non-restrictive), but that also depends on the price. One hour to Chicago (actually 1 hour 20 minutes) for a plane trip needs to include security before, requirement to check bags with liquids or gels, and distance from city center in each city.

The fastest anyone could speed-run a KC to Chicago plane flight (with perfect conditions and no checked luggage), downtown to downtown, would be getting dropped off at the airport after a car ride (25 minutes), risk a longish line by going through TSA pre-check before boarding (~30 minutes before plane leaves), taking the flight (1 hour 20 minutes on Southwest), and hope for flawless Chicago traffic from the airport to downtown (20 minutes for MDW and 30 minutes for O'Hare + a super fast 5 minutes to get off the plane and to transportation). So, the absolute fastest you could do it would be 25+30+80+20+5 = 160 minutes or 2 hours and 40 minutes (assuming you don't do something crazy like show up for your flight 5 minutes before doors close). Things that can go wrong include traffic in KC (would also be an issue for rail or fixed mode), a security backup at the airport, a weather problem in an unrelated city prior to your plane's arrival, a weather problem in KC or Chicago, and traffic in Chicago (likely). It is more likely that the fastest trips are in the 3 to 4 hour range, depending on traffic to and from the airport, but with a lot more headache (in my opinion).

If Amtrak or Hyperloop could get the KC to Chicago route under 4 hours (from 7.5 now on Amtrak), it would be much more pleasurable and convenient to me than flying, so I'm not sure Hyperloop, or even fast rail, has to go more than ~150 MPH to really impact things. If you take the car elements out of the equation and assume the stations are at the airports, then the above speed-run air travel scenario would be just shy of 2 hours, and 200 MPH on a fixed mode of transportation would take around 2.5 to 3 hours depending on stops and as-the-crow-flies vs. reality distances. If you can increase the frequency and compete in price, the train will win that war due to capacity and convenience. Hyperloop is cool because we have the potential to leverage a giant transportation weakness as a country and turn it into a future strength (where other countries are more tied to existing rail structures), but the reality is that existing high speed rail technologies can compete with air travel today.

shinatoo wrote:The economic difference between this and other modes of transport is that it potentially could have departures 24/7. They are projecting being able to launch a pod a minute. More like a tollway. So much higher capacity = lower per ride fees. In urban areas, it will most likely be underground.

With 15 minute gaps and two tubes the maximum would be 96 departures each way daily.

With 20 people per pod, remember that weight will be a factor, that’s about 1900 people daily each with s round trip700,000 per year.

$50 million per mile for 230 miles is $11.5 billionWith a 40 year payoff with *zero interest and operational costs* would be

$410 per ticket just for the base cost.I would go to 4x the cost, so $1600 per ticket

So to get down to a normal plan ticket it needs to run larger numbers every time or run closer to every 4-6 minutes for the entire 24 hours

There’s clear scale up issues, like air travel it would be a premium service for the initial decade or so

shinatoo wrote:The economic difference between this and other modes of transport is that it potentially could have departures 24/7. They are projecting being able to launch a pod a minute. More like a tollway. So much higher capacity = lower per ride fees. In urban areas, it will most likely be underground.

With 15 minute gaps and two tubes the maximum would be 96 departures each way daily.

With 20 people per pod, remember that weight will be a factor, that’s about 1900 people daily each with s round trip700,000 per year.

$50 million per mile for 230 miles is $11.5 billionWith a 40 year payoff with *zero interest and operational costs* would be

$410 per ticket just for the base cost.I would go to 4x the cost, so $1600 per ticket

So to get down to a normal plan ticket it needs to run larger numbers every time or run closer to every 4-6 minutes for the entire 24 hours

There’s clear scale up issues, like air travel it would be a premium service for the initial decade or so

By Comparison, Acela has 20 Daily Departures with a yearly ridership of ~3.5 Million. Less trips more riders per trip.

The high end of Hyperloop's official price estimate is 120 ish million per mile so thats like kc-stl for $30 Billion. So I'd say it will probably cost at least $45 Billion once they actually figure out how to build it.

a) Midwest Rail Initiative estimated the cost of medium highspeed rail at a cost of ~$3 Million per mile. So that would be like $738 million for KC to STL. With overruns and others costs, $1.5 Billion is reasonable. $80 million per mile is what California projects for their bullet trains.

b) new airport terminals for both KC and STL would cost maybe 2.3 Billion and would have around the same travel times as the Hyperloop.

Also, the same restriction affecting the 670 lid (no private ownership atop MoDOT right of way) would likely apply here. Unless the law changes (see how they bent over for Uber), a hyperloop would have to be owned by the state and could maybe be operated by Virgin. As soon as we have a cost estimate, they'll know how much Missouri taxpayers will have to invest. That will lead to a rural revolt (no stops in Boonville!?!?!) and the project will die just like tolling on I-70.

Even if it was physically possible and was not immediately blown up/shot by a terrorist/disgruntled farmer, Hyperloop would be a lot more similar to flying than HSR. 30 minute drive to it, security, limited space, cramped, but with virtual windows (or none). And I'm not even going into the prices because no one has any clue what those would be (no matter what the Hyperloop companies say.)